Talk:Switzerland

Haven for Tax Evaders

I think this article should state more clearly that Switzerland's economy is built primarily on its secret bank account system, which holds billions of dollars deposited by tax evaders and criminals from all over Europe... Perhaps there should be a 'criticisms' section. When you say 'Switzerland', most people immediately think 'tax haven' - Wikipedia should reflect this. Vorpaul (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you believe that Swiss economy is built on it's banking system. Please give me some additional information about your sources.

According to my sources (OECD and official Swiss statistics), the entire financial sector only contributes roughly 10 percent to the nation's GDP. The banking sector only contributes a part of this sector, the country's insurance industry is also very important. If you analyze Swiss banking further, you'll find that investment banking actually is responsible for nearly fifty percent of profits.

So the whole private banking sector only contributes roughly 2 to 3 percent to the GDP. As most assets managed by Swiss banks do belong to Swiss citizen, I'd estimate the money made with foreigners hiding their money in Switzerland of less than 1 percent of the GDP.

It's also worth noting that Switzerland has one of the world's strictest anti-money laundring laws, which is why criminals usually choose Hong Kong, Singapore, Cayman Islands or the Channel Islands for hiding their assets. Also dictators like Gadaffi increasingly avoid Switzerland - which is wise, as the Swiss government was the first one that froze Gadaffi's assets...

After my studies of the world's financial markets, I must conclude that many people seem to misunderstand the Swiss market. Perhaps this is because of some old movies where Swiss bank accounts, especially number accounts, were really secret. Jiuhao (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

please see ---> http://www.beaconequity.com/smw/12149/US-Warns-Ten-Swiss-Banks-to-Handover-Account-Information, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/singapore-s-mas-warns-private-banks-against-illicit-funds-1-.html, as just two recent examples of Swiss banking being used for illicit purposes. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

John Calvin?

I'm really surprised that John Calvin isn't in this article. I don't know much about Switzerland, but I do know that, for good or ill, Calvin has had an enormous impact on Christianity in the West. I think it should be noted that he lived in Switzerland when he attempted to reform the religion. 98.240.208.99 (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Switzerland/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally good, but referencing needs to be improved

• More references needed. "Switzerland and the European Union" only has references in the first paragraph; more are needed across the article where I've put cite needed tags (I've put them in general paragraphs needing cites, not just after specific facts)
• Separate notes from references using <ref group=note> - it's a lot easier to use than having them all grouped together
• A few 1-2 sentence paragraphs that disrupt the flow ought to be combined with others
• Couple of dead links [1]
• Add an external ref for number 22 about Lenin

• Are all the external links really necessary?
• Possibly too many images?
• "Swiss armed forces" - "a high percentage of the people voted in favour of it" - can you quote the actual figure?

I'm putting the article on hold, as I think the references can be sorted out in a week.

I added some references and separated them from the notes but there are still two citations missing in the first section (Etymology). Apparently all dead links have alternate source. mgeo talk 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pass The article is at the GA standard - there are no substantial problems that would cause the article to fail the review. However, I think I can still see some areas that have still not been fixed from the first PR over 3 years ago, although the most significant have been. Jhbuk (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthem

The Anthem is not in German only, as may suggest the infobox. As stated in the linked Article, the anthem has lyrics in all four national languages. As I don't wan't to register only to correct this, I hope someone else does. 188.60.80.188 (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Put it in English. I don't think it is necessary to have the translations in every languages. mgeo talk 15:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WW2 Bombing

Gertzi! It seems I read where either Shauffhausen or Winterthur was bombed by the Allies after repeatedly being warned to stop producing ball bearings for the Nazis. Can someone verify this? I lived in Luzern for 2 years and picked up the language from the locals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.251.201 (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It was Schaffhausen, see Schaffhausen#History and de:Schaffhausen#Bombardierung Schaffhausens im Zweiten Weltkrieg (in German). Though the official version (also by the U.S.) is that it was a mistake. Lupo 11:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How important was Capodistria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Capodistria says: In 1809 Kapodistrias entered the service of Alexander I of Russia.[19] His first important mission, in November 1813, was as unofficial Russian ambassador to Switzerland, with the task of helping disentangle the country from the French dominance imposed by Napoleon. He secured Swiss unity, independence and neutrality, which were formally guaranteed by the Great Powers, and actively facilitated the initiation of a new Constitution for the 19 cantons that were the component states of Switzerland, with personal drafts. In the ensuing Congress of Vienna, 1815, as the Russian minister, he counterbalanced the paramount influence of the Austrian minister, Prince Metternich, and insisted on French state unity under a Bourbon monarch. He also obtained new international guarantees for the Constitution and neutrality of Switzerland through an agreement among the Powers. After these brilliant diplomatic successes, Alexander I appointed Kapodistrias joint Foreign Minister of Russia (with Karl Robert Nesselrode). Is that true? Supposedly there are some statues to Capodistria in Switzerland too. Simanos (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be true. C.f. [2], [3], and [4]. A bust in honor of Kapodistrias was unveiled in Lausanne-Ouchy on September 21, 2009. Lupo 13:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 93.158.79.103, 21 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "133th" to "133rd" because it is wrong.

93.158.79.103 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Done --skew-t (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

food

I would rather mention Appenzeller cheese and Rivelle, Ovomaltine etc instead of Swiss wine. Unless there are some awards to prove that it is especially outstanding, I would leave the wine out. Since wine is not an especially Swiss or a product switzerland is known for, it add undue weight to the article. Greetings --hroest 10:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Swiss conquest of England

Some authors say that the real conquerors of England were swiss and not at all normans. The reality must appear. It is not neutral. Check up.--Dogfish Jim and the Dixoap (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why the articles

(German: die Schweiz,[note 3] French: la Suisse, Italian: la Svizzera, Romansh: la Svizra) What's the need of articles in the incipit?--93.45.195.8 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what WP:MOS recommends, but in German, at least, there is a good reason for putting the definite article. "Die Schweiz" is one of few nations where German language uses an article (other examples include "der Sudan", "die Ukraine", or nations in the plural form such as "die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika" (or "die USA"), but simply "Deutschland", "Frankreich", "Australien", "Namibia", ... for most nations. In the three Romance languages, it is standard to use a definite article before a nation, unlike in English (also with a small number of exceptions). So it makes sense to write "la Suisse" as the correct form, because you wouldn't say "Suisse" (without "la") for the nation; "Suisse" would imply the demonym. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite my weak attempt at justifying it, it looks like this usage isn't consistent with other articles on countries, including the featured articles on Peru and Chad, where the Romance translations are given as headwords without article. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

in Romance languages you put the definite article pretty much before of anything, this doesn't mean you need to write "la Suisse" or whatever else, only the proper name is relevant. Probably it's well justified in German, but in the other three cases I think it's just osmosis. --93.45.208.224 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. mgeo talk 01:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Old Swiss Confederacy

The original three cantons where Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden - and not Nidwalden. Unterwalden later split into Nid- and Obwalden.

The article History of Switzerland shows it correctly. Also does Confoederatio Helvetica on German Wiki.

84.74.102.34 (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. mgeo talk 22:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Status of Swiss Language

I miss some information on the status of the languages: I understand that all 3 languages can be spoken in the national parliament, but are there restriction on official use of the languages in the different regions? Is education in French organised in the German speaking part and vice versa? And if no is it because there is no need for it or because it is not allowed?

Can a German speaking person expect to do his official communication with the government(tax papers, building permits, other administration) in German in the French speaking part (and vice versa)?

What is the language in local politics, is it fixed or are the politicians free to choose?

I had asked the question in Talk:Languages of Switzerland, but maybe here there is more chance on getting an answer.Nicob1984 (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

no, because these are the official languages at the federal level, and can be used in official communication with the confederation, but not on the cantonal level. Each canton has its own official language, mostly a single one, but as is noted at Languages of Switzerland, "The cantons of Fribourg, Bern and Valais are officially bilingual; Graubünden is officially trilingual." In general, most questions about Switzerland can be answered with "it depends on the canton". --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand. So a citizen must do all his communication with the government in the language of his canton and can only follow education in the language of his canton.

I suppose that the official language of each canton is determined by the parliament of that canton. Are there any precedents of cantons that chanced their official language(s)? (As a Belgian I am very much interested in this topic, cause we have a similar situation, and I did not find answers on my beloved encyclopedia.)Nicob1984 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. It depends on the governmental level. On the Federal level any federal language will do. On the cantonal level, the official language(s) of the canton must be used. Same on the municipal level. All three are separate entities. Don Durandal (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Rumantsh was added as the third official language of Grisons in the 1930s. The other bilingual cantons have been so since the foundation of the federal state. --dab (𒁳) 21:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland is in the unusual situation of being the home of three of Europe's major languages.

The wording for this sounds very strange. The way it's worded is as if the three languages were invented in Switzerland which I'm sure isn't the case. It seems to me like this should be reworded, right? Switzerland#Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.182.248 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked. Belgium also hosts 3 major languages. Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

POV in most Swiss articles

I comment here as the topic concerns Swiss articles, rather than inserting the same discussion in the thousands of articles it concerns. During the autumn, User:Tobyc75 has done a fantastic job expanding the articles on Swiss communes, and I am the first to thank him for his extremely valuable contribution to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, there is one problem that, in my eyes at least, lower the quality of every article on Swiss communes. Looking at demographics and education, we are constantly given the opening line "The entire Swiss population is generally well educated." I have several objections to this phrase. To start with, it is not sourced. I'm sure the Swiss are well educated, but we're concerned with sourced facts. Even if a source of some kind was added, the next question is: "well educated" compared to whom? I'm Finnish myself, used to live in Canada and Sweden. Are the Swiss better educated than Finns, Swedes or Canadians? Perhaps, perhaps not and that's not really the point either. The phrase is quite simply vague and there's a strong hint of chauvinism to it, while not adding anything to the article on the individual communes. Quite the contrary, it detracts from the quality. If properly sourced, that claim could and should be made in this article and in the article Education in Switzerland, though not in every article on Swiss communes.Jeppiz (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really see what the big deal is here. The statement is a lead into a section on education, and makes no comparison with any specific other country. A few reports that show Switzerland's performance against other countries (focusing on the US's poor performance) NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS (US), World Economic Forum, ranks Switzerland as first in Global Competitiveness, CIA world fact book, says 99% literacy. Tobyc75 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jeppiz here. The statement "The entire Swiss population is generally well educated" is out of place at the start of every "Education" section about Swiss municipalities (e.g. Mendrisio#Education), not because it is wrong, but because it is vague and unrelated to the specific municipality. Instead, the hatnote

See also: Education in Switzerland

could be used at the start of the section, and general statements about Swiss education made there.  Sandstein  21:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, I think I'll just drop the line from the articles going forward. It appears in about 1500 articles right now, so removing it'll be a slow process. Anyone any good with bots? Tobyc75 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad we all agree about removing the sentence. A bot would be great, but in the meantime I can start working on it by removing it from at least some articles. I'll start with the larger cities and better known municipalities, those that are likely to get most readers. CheersJeppiz (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I have to agree with Tobyc75 about the statement. Anyway it doesn't seem really important to me and I think we should leave the choice to the editor who is doing the hard work (hence Tobyc75) and not use a bot - unless, of course, there is a broad consensus to remove the statement. mgeo talk 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Should we mention in the introduction that Switzerland is home to the International Labour Organization and the World Trade Organization? To my knowledge they are not particularly related to Switzerland (unlike the Red Cross) and we could list dozens of other institutions that have at least the same notability. mgeo talk 14:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I removed them. mgeo talk 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Central Europe or Western Europe

Recently, I engaged in a very strange 'battle' with Madgeographer. He argues that Switzerland is Western European while vast majority of resources say it is actualy central European, as an alpine country with no Atlantic colonies in the past and under confluence of Protestant and Catholic cultures. I suggest to stick to resources, unless mad. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1035212.stm http://www.docstoc.com/docs/53115069/A-Subdivision-of-Europe-into-Larger-Regions-by-Cultural http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4308k60457x3n41/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Central_Europe_(Meyers_Grosses_Taschenlexikon).png http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Central_Europe_(Brockhaus).PNG http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Central_Europe_(Mayers_Enzyklopaedisches_Lexikon).PNG http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/577225/Switzerland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No matter how many references you cite to support your point of view, in the English-speaking world Switzerland is still usually associated with western Europe rather than central Europe. There is already a note saying that Switzerland is sometimes considered part of central Europe. I really don't see what's wrong with that. mgeo talk 10:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Understanding your reference concern, I provided only non-Wikipedia references. During the Cold war,Even Greece, Cyprus and Finland were in Western Europe. the cold war ended more or less 20 years ago andd new European sub-division was suggested by numerous scholars. Most importantly, the United NAtionns geography experts. This sub-division is in use by major media, including BBC: Switzerland.

You must be at least 35 years old like my teacher or just Extra-European. My teacher recommended my class to visit 'Eastern Berlin' while the city is nowadays united and finding Eastern Berlin is almost impossible, unless you just go to the East. I know that because I was there.

I tell you that to say that I understand your position. Please, just remain open enough for changes which took place in Europe. --Rejedef (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't agree with your edits. Switzerland is located on about every map of Western Europe, while it often doesn't appear on maps of Central Europe. You are also saying here that the term "Western Europe" is no longer in use, but it is simply not true:

• For a relatively small country bang in the heart of Western Europe, Switzerland has an astonishingly complicated array of languages..., Rough Guide to Switzerland, 2003
• Situated at the crossroads of Western Europe, Switzerland has traditionally had a liberal foreign trade system., OECD Economic Surveys: Switzerland, 2003
• Switzerland appears as one of the great anomalies of European integration. Located at the heart of Western Europe and surrounded by European Union (EU) member states on all side, it has chosen not to be a member. Switzerland's Bilateral Agreements with the European Union, 2006

Therefore it seems to me that "middle of Western Europe" could be more appropriate than just "Western Europe" or "Western or Central Europe (depending on the definition)". mgeo talk 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the term Western Europe lost its cold war significance. Nowadays Alpine countries but Italy and related with HRE are Central European.

The fact that it doesn't appear in the maps of Central Europe is easy to challenge: how old are maps you are relating to? Do these maps relate to the new or old sub-division of Europe?

Relating to the fact that it is a country with an array of languages, it will support the fact that it is a Central European country, as Uniited Nations geographers suggest: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf

Rough guide of Switzerland for me is no reference because the publisher is not mentioned or well-established enough. Also, it is not a scholarly nor geographical book, but a guide which is about travel and leisure.

I didn't find your resource of OECD. What I found is a report stating several times Switzerland's Central Position in Europe: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/16/36280038.pdf

Please note both resources were published before 2006 when the UN paper was published: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/23-gegn/wp/gegn23wp48.pdf

Now I expect you to stop editing this section of the article. --Rejedef (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "UN paper" stating that Switzerland is in Central Europe. For the United Nations Statistics Division, Switzerland is included in Western Europe (although it is principally for statistical purposes). This article is about Switzerland, not Geography of Switzerland. Why is it so important to you to have the term "Central Europe" explicitly mentioned in the introduction? mgeo talk 20:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS

I suggest to keep the version "Western or Central Europe". I believe the previous version gives virtually no transparency to the fact that Switzerland is commonly considered as a Central European country, especially in Britain and Germany. This also mentions Western in the FIRST PLACE. As Western Europe is still in use and relatively common, especially before 2006 and during the Cold War when countries like Turkey, Finland, Greece, Malta and Cyprus were 'Western European' just because they weren't in the Warsaw Pact. --Rejedef (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This "controversy" is seriously getting out of hand. For me, being Swiss and all, it's a clear case that most Swiss people regard themselves Central Europeans (together with Germans and Austrians and a few others). Apparently, this does not cut it in a lot of English sources. So well. Let's have an edit war for a few weeks. And a fine one at that, one to take serious WP pride in. For Jimminy's sake, let's acknowledge both notions if we must, and move the s**t on. Can we have a "yay"? ("Which one is 'yes'?" - "Yay.") Trigaranus (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposed consensus is good. The added comment by Trigaranus about "most Swiss people" is to be understood as "Swiss German speaking people" (a majority indeed). French and Italian speakers tend to feel otherwise. Clpda (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The following part of Reference 2 looks spurious:

Also known for their amazing chocolate around the world. Switzerland creates a wonderful variety of desserts filled with rich cocoa.

Lalsam (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

From the description of a picture "Some of the Swiss scientists who played a key role in their discipline (clockwise): Leonhard Euler (mathematics) Louis Agassiz (glaciology) Auguste Piccard (aeronautics) Albert Einstein (physics)"

Einstein is a german. Are there not enough real swissborn people to present? I know he studied in swiss but still... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.36.37 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This section is not about Swiss-born people, it is about science in Switzerland. Einstein was Swiss and he was a Nobel Prize winner, see any major biography. mgeo talk 10:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was german born and he was german citizen and lived in germany when he recieved the nobel prize, i dont understand why the article suggests einstein was swiss. are there not 4 real swiss people who are worth to mention in this section? Would be better than indicating einstein was a swiss born. And yes i know he was a swiss citizen, but he also was an american... . At least it should be mentioned that einstein was a german and simply lived in switzerland for a while not more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.155.187 (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

- "Many Nobel prizes were awarded to Swiss scientists, for example to the world-famous physicist Albert Einstein" this is simply wrong. Pls check sources regarding nobelprice, einstein is mentioned as german, simply because he was one. when he got the nobel prize, he was german born, he was german citizen and he lived in germany. Please change this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.155.187 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was a german. He officially rejected german citizenship while he was 17 and lived in Switzerland, where he was studying. And sure he was not german when he won the Nobel. It's interesting to note that Nobel winners Von Lenard and Stark (they were actually german) categorized Einstein's works as "Jew Physics" under the 3rd Reich. --Pascalbrax (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was born in Germany and was a German citizen from 1879–1896 and from 1914–1933. The Nobel Price he received in 1921, so of course he was a German citizen at the time. Apart from that, he was and always will remain "German-born"; therefore mostly being German.--IIIraute (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is anyway completely irrelevant in this article. There are other people born outside Switzerland mentioned in this article and we don't give their origins. mgeo talk 11:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The science part is full of bias and misleading in the way it is written. It also did claim that Einstein did write his "General Theory of Relativity (1916)" in Bern, while it was the "Special Relativity (1905)" he did write in Bern. In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 he published his paper on the general theory of relativity. In 1921 he received the Nobel Prize while being a German citizen, researching and living in Germany. (see: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html)--IIIraute (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes you're right about the "special theory" he developed in Bern (and not the general theory). Thanks for the correction. mgeo talk 11:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit request

A point about English idiom. "Its policy of neutrality has been internationally recognised at the Congress of Vienna in 1815" You can say "Switzerland has been neutral since 1815" but for a once-only act you need to use "was" not "has been". So you could say "Its policy of neutrality was internationally recognised at the Congress of Vienna in 1815."Alphick (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I corrected it. Thanks for spotting the mistake. mgeo talk 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File:KKG-SW-Flight.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KKG-SW-Flight.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

MadGeographer's constant edit-warring and violation of WP standards and policy

For some weird reason editor MadGeographer does not like Switzerland being said to be situated in both "central" and "western Europe", even though the very article he had me check SAYS THAT VERY THING about Switzerland. It says in the "Geography of Switzerland" article these very words: "Switzerland can be either part of Western or Central Europe, both concepts being context-dependent and carrying cultural, economical and political connotations." There's no real indication that "western Europe" for Switzerland is necessarily more accurate. But this is the thing. I did a fair compromise that his MG editor (who does not understand that he does not own any article, yet he is acting as if he does, because he has some affinity for Switzerland apparently (check his page), and therefore has certain biases or preferences of how something should or should not be) did not see as an "improvement" in rude arrogance. I put it as "situated in central and western Europe" to make it clear that it's considered both. Why? BECAUSE SWITZERLAND IS CONSIDERED AS IN BOTH. So what's the problem? Just because he "does not like" is not a valid WP reason to blatantly undo an edit that is 1) accurate 2) sourced 3) supported by other WP articles and 4) good-faith. NO BUSINESS UNDOING THAT, simply because of his own personal tastes or whims or jerkiness. I won't put up with it.

Again, he acts as if he owns the article, and does not understand that he does not, and he is supposed respect other edits as long as they're technically accurate and good-faith. That's WP recommendation and policy...to NOT revert. Reverting things you don't like even if they're valid and sourced etc, anything other than real inaccuracies or vandalism etc, is against WP drift and policy, if one bothers to study the policy on these things. The point is it's a fact that Switzerland is ALSO considered as in "Central Europe" TOO. So I put it as both central and western. MadGeographer for some reason has a problem with it, but that's HIS problem, that he should not be nuisancing Wikipedia with, as it his personal issue. Not a valid WP argument or situation. And his constant reverting is edit-warring, and not to be tolerated. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Western Europe and Central Europe (note the capital letters) are regions of Europe, western Europe only means the western part of Europe, which is more correct in this case than central Europe (e.g. Switzerland is much closer to the Atlantic ocean than the Ural mountains).

I think the introduction should be clear and without unnecessary details, hence my revert. You can always propose a better introduction/definition on this talk page, so other editors can comment on it and choose the better one (per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). mgeo talk 00:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Both are applicable the other article says, so there's nothing wrong (but just more clear) to state both. There's no valid WP reason to rudely revert just because an editor does not personally "like" it.

But even if that's the case, MG is in violation as he broke 3RR BIG TIME here. And he never went to Talk like I asked him to more than once. He never discussed it out in this discussion page. MG is in clear violation on a number of levels. Breaking 3RR, and refusing to discuss, and undoing valid accurate edits or modifications or elaboration, simply because he personally does not like it. But again, the other article says there's no real one better than the other. And that BOTH are applicable. So there's nothing wrong in stating both. It's accurate to do so, and even more clear. So you're wrong in saying that it should be ONLY one or the other. Because it's a fact that it's both. But regardless, MadGeographer is in clear violation, and now he's reported. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Science

The science part is full of bias and misleading in the way it is written. It also did claim (before my edit) that Einstein did write his "General Theory of Relativity (1916)" in Bern, while it was the "Special Relativity (1905)" he did write in Bern. In his early days in Berlin, Einstein postulated that the correct interpretation of the special theory of relativity must also furnish a theory of gravitation and in 1916 he published his paper on the general theory of relativity. In 1921 he received the Nobel Prize while being a German citizen, researching, teaching and living in Germany. (see: www.Nobelprize.org - http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html). The former source cited (before the changes) is full of mistakes and POV, gives wrong dates, etc. --IIIraute (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The source: Einstein tops list of leading Swiss - swissinfo.ch, should be removed, as it is full of wrong & bias information. (Wrong theory, wrong date for Nobel Prize, wrong citizenship, etc.)--IIIraute (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)